This is because from the beginning the game was a supermodel. Nice looking (not the best) but dead and lifeless where it counts. Only Warhead had a glimmer of personality and this was due to the character of Sean Chapman.

I've always liked the idea of a dev team alternating between 2 or 3 franchises. There's nothing wrong with waiting 3 or 4 years for the next chapter in your favourite franchise.

Crytek should have something quite different they can make in between Crysis launches. Like a space exploration game or maybe even an RPG set in the Crysis universe, they would obviously need to flesh out the world and lore much more though.

Right, it had nothing to do with the gaming being less than 5 hours long and having a crappy, disjointed story. It also had nothing to do with the multiplayer being a camper's dream of sitting around with a stealth suit on sniping anyone with no chance of being caught beforehand. Way to balance things, Crytek.

We will see if there is fatigue when Bioshock comes out. I have a feeling the scores will be rather high despite it being also the third in a series within the same generation.

Agreed, i'm loving it too! Cevat needs to be talking less and better checking ALL the sources instead of stating BS too early. He is causing most of the damage to his own franchise, please dude, stop running your mouth so fast, things are not that bad, f the journalists! Anyways, Metacritic & Journalism is BS.

One thing going for Crysis 3 besides the beautiful graphics is the non-corridor levels. Look at how linear the levels are in CoD, Halo and Killzone. Disgraceful. Though Far Cry 3 is better than all of the aforementioned shooters imo.

@Emzx99 What a very stupid and ignorant comment indeed. Just because he gets entertainment from something that you may not, doesn't mean he is easily entertained. Also Crysis 3 isn't a casual game. If you want to be hardcore, how about you try write a game? Go dig into CryEngine 3 sdk code and level editor and see what you can make. Or make your own game engine like I have. Then you can call yourself hardcore.

"Do it yourself" is the argument of weaklings . Hell it's no argument at all ... positive feedback or not , it's a piece of entertainement it's there for all to judge .

And those games are linear for their own reason , they provide something else in return , wich we like or not .

C3 isnt even half the open experience of C1 , nor is it half the set pieces and narration from the games you mention ... resulting in a very mixed bag for some or plenty of us . It should have built on C1's strengths instead , instead of just fixing C2 being worse in those aspects

Far cry has a longer development time so we dont see the games as often. It works.

I have no sympathy for Crytek since they're sitting on the timesplitters license and refuse to do anything with it. If they want commercial succes they may want to start with that golden ticket and stop pushing Cryengine 3.

I think it has something to do with them telling people how great the game looked and their doing "next gen" things with Crysis. While the game looks great on consoles it shines on PC and console gamers know this and feel like they're getting shunned with limited tech that can only take them so far.

believe it or not consumers look for gameplay rather than a games with good lookin graphics.

People don't see next gen in Crysis, its just a game that looks really great with average but with somewhat unique gameplay mechanics.

To top it off they're releasing the game late in the gen. People got they're fix of what this gen can offer and are playing games that are familiar to them.

it is atnoshing how many ignorant gamers are on here. So what if a game got around 80% metacritic. This game far excels Crysis 2 in everyway and builds upon its mistakes. I am playing on it on the PS3 and the graphics and visual effects are just outstanding. This game is not all about graphics the actual gameplay is great! Lets you play how you want in open and detailed lush environments brimming with eye candy. Let it be the water , the grass or the lighting the game is one of the best looking console game i seen. i really wonder how amazing it would look on very high settings on a powerful pc if it looks this good on consoles.

use your brain and play the game before you start judging it based on reviews. This one of the best fps on consoles and the best on PS3. I havent played MP but enjoying the campaign being a predator and taking enemies out one by one clearing the entire area without being spotted.

The game is far better then many fps these days. At this moment i can see the game being short as i only see 7 levels

You love playing games on consoles at 20-25fps right!I dont!Crysis3 is crap,it cant give the player a smooth play on consoles,gameplay is bland,its all graphics with no substance!I prefer to pick or save my money on Tomb Raider,Gear of War..Metal gear rising,God of War A.Bioshock infinite to the crap Crysis3 any day!Well i prefer Runner 2 to it!I even have a pc able to play it at max settings but guess what,the game is just a pile of crap on the gameplay that im passing it in favour of the other ones i mention and play them on a console.

Well said! Gamers here are *cool* and love to jump on the hate bandwagon just because some pros out there said so. Their only argument is "it's bland" or "the gameplay sucks" when these hypocrites don't realize that most FPS games play the same.

I think it's because of how Crytek went on about how their game will be the best looking game on consoles for the next 2 or so years. It left a bad vibe, because that is all I heard about the game; how good it looks, but not much about the story. If you look at any of the upcoming exclusive(s) on the PS3, 360 and/or PC, you can see that they don't only look great, if not better, but their story will be better than what Crysis 3 has brought to the table (Just by trailers and gameplay videos).

The way the game looks, is not the only thing that matters. The game can look great, but the gameplay and story can suck and bring the whole game down.

Yes, it's the reflexive action caused by the dilution of gaming journalism. The "any moron with a blog" problem that rears its ugly head all too often around here. Journalists are now starting to realise that they need to differentiate themselves as actual journalists from the indistinguishable mass of fanboy websites and morons with blogs. It's got a long way to go yet, but it might just get there.

Not only that, but many have begun to shine a light on the somewhat under-handed tactics and shady dealings between publishers and gaming press giants (IGN, Gamespot, etc.), and gamers have grown increasingly distrustful of the once stalwart centres of gaming journalism. They're not likely to completely cease the culture of paid/incentivised reviewing, but they will be working to strike more of a balance between credibility and profit/relevance.

So should we have no game journalists? You scold the "any moron with a blog" which I find more trustful than big websites like IGN or even Gameinformer which is owned by Gamestop. Then you say that real journalists like IGN and such are beginning to distinguish themselves from the "any moron with a blog" crowd. Then you call the big sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc. out with their underhanded shady tactics. You need to make up your mind. Do you want more fancy reviews that you have to question the true motives behind the score or do you want less articulate writing but honest reviews from the so called "any moron with a blog" people. Because after all the idiots with a blog are doing it without being paid, but instead as a hobby because they love the medium.They aren't getting a bonus for reviewing a game well, and they aren't recieving gift baskets to sway their opinion. Hell, most of the time their buying the games with their own money. As a writer I find your comment distasteful and harsh. When I review a game I review the game from a gamers perspective, and at the very least people can read my reviews knowing I wasn't paid to give a certain game a certain review score.

Also, in the past times -really old times- the internet wasn't as big as it's now, and the only way we could know if a game was good or bad was: Try it somehow, or buy a dedicated magazine. So there were only like three or five opinions. Now, everyone (Literally: Everyone)can be a reviewer, or post an opinion about a game. With so many people, with so many tastes, no game will ever please anyone.

We get an overload of information these days. The emotion of discovery has gone to hell too, with so many leaks, opinions, users giving spoilers...

I also feel, too many games too short of timeframe and too little time, im a core gamer, but as i get older i have less and less time to game with sooo many games out these days, i tend to play less of them, sequels really lose my purchase.

Games that i havnt played but played the first couple in the series. -Dead Space 3 -Crysis 3 -Halo 4 -Gears of War: Judgment -Forza Horizon -Fable 3 -RE6

I agree there's been to much recycling this generation and not enough new ip's to keep things fresh. Devs have literally ran out of ideas so they resort to tacking on useless and unwanted features to a games that are already great in an attempt to keep the ip relevant or they change the game completely to cater to another demographic (casuals).

That's a fascinating point, and it reminds me of why I respect a company like Nintendo I'm not really a big fan of their games, in one hand you can critique their use of the same IP's on another you can praise the fact that they only release sequels for the most part every 4-5 years.

Now this is great because a wider time frame for the most part allows for a more refined, evolved game. The problem is where seeing to many sequels released every 2 years, to the point where you just get more of the same rather than a more evolved expansive game.

Where seeing too many sequels released in the 1-2 year time frame, its bloody ridiculous, some of the games on you're list are sequels to games we were playing same time in 2011, wasn't Gears Of War 3 released in late 2011 and Judgement is just a few weeks away what is that 18 months ? come on. What we need is fewer sequels, longer release dates and newer IP's to fill the void.

@mi_titan27 "I also feel, too many games too short of timeframe and too little time, im a core gamer, but as i get older i have less and less time to game with sooo many games out these days, i tend to play less of them, sequels really lose my purchase." Sorry to copy your entire post but it begs to be repeated.

Games that i havnt played but played the first couple in the series. -Dead Space 3 I still haven't finished 2. It's good, but just more of 1. -Crysis 3 See point 1 -Halo 4 Couldn't even finish Reach. -Gears of War: Judgment See point 1. -Forza Horizon -Fable 3 -RE6 Still haven't even finished 5.

"just start to lose interest after a while, need NEW ip's."

Spot on. These pubs and devs are only hurting themselves in the long run with copy and paste gameplay with a new coat of paint.

I think that crytek don't try and buy reviews either, The big problem with hyping up a game is that if it falls even slightly below expectation it will be marked down far more heavly than if it came out of nowhere. If they hadn't gone on about how much better the pc version would be then they probably gained better scores from the console versions.

Then maybe it's time to make something innovative in the FPS genre. It's been the same old thing with better graphics for two decades. Yes, good game, but can not someone try something new in the first person!?

Exactly, its like if their game looks great and "melts PCs" then they're happy, who cares if the gameplay is the same and as boring as every other shooter out there. Great graphics dont make great games, great gameplay makes great games.

I never liked Crytek, they seem very arrogant and cant take criticism. They're always making excuses like this one and the other usual one "consoles are holding us back because they're limited", well you have a console, you know what it can do, make the best possible game for that consoles specifications. Thats how things work, know your limits, dont make one too "powerful" for it then complain about the limits.

Resistance 3 was the last shooter that felt fresh to me, atmospheric, immersive story and characters that you care about and the most creative use of weaponry ive come across.

I think thats one of my biggest problems at the moment. For all the power that is available now the only thing stepping up is graphics... story seems to have taken a dive. this like AI that I really expected to improve are hardly any better the the AI in HaloCE on the old xbox.

my big worry going forward into the new Gen will be that it's just a repeat of the same.

At the moment I just feel like I can't be bothered with 90% of the games coming out now. They may look good but thats the problem, thats all they seem to do, look good !!

But there's some truth in what he says. And that is we're fatigued from the huge amount of shooters this whole gen. Frankly I think the only time a dev should be called a AAA dev is when they show their talents by creating successful games in different genres ala Naughty Dogs

I actually enjoyed crysis 3 but as developers these guys drive me mad. There is no conceivable reason why crysis 3 should be linear. That whole action bubble stuff was impressive in Far Cry, fun in crysis, and in crysis 3 it's looking more and more outdated. Just give us a freaking map and let us pretend to be the predator - even the suits who bought far cry could see that.

I understand they came to an impasse with graphics because of the console limit, and yeah I s'pose you've got to eat, but crysis 2 should have at least been ambitious on SOME scope. Now, maybe I'm just an idiot but if you can't improve graphics then add amazing new technology in other areas like AI, ecological life cycles, or epic huge worlds. They've clung to a design that was revolutionary around about a decade ago but they just didn't evolve the concept to its logical conclusion. Who the hell looked at crysis and asked for it to be smaller in map size and shorter in length? Who gets turned off by destructible buildings?

And they can make it as pretty as they want it still sucks when I realize a sky scraper I'm looking at is literally a 3D block with little flat windows drawn onto it. That is not really my idea of next-gen.